If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Welcome to the new PC Perspective forums! Have a look around and tell us what you think in our feedback forum. If you notice any bugs or style issues, please report them in this thread.

Re: Athlon 64 Rev F Changes

If the technical changes are a "requirement" to continually stay ahead of Intel, great!

At the same time, I was also disappointed in that I've purchased an SLI based 939 motherboard in anticipation of using this for a while longer (although a year isn't bad, just wanted to stretch it even further). I guess it depends on what their socket 939 roadmap continues to look like in the future even if they release an M2 socket. Interestingly, it looks like the 754 socket appears to have life till 2006 according to the slide as well and may be even somewhat longer if I'm reading the graphic correctly.

Re: Athlon 64 Rev F Changes

yeah, that's what it appears to me. Of course, that graphic you are looking at is for the DIY market, in the same presentation, the S754 was gone much ealier, replaced by the S939 platform. This gives OEMs a single platform and therefore easier integration, etc.

Re: Athlon 64 Rev F Changes

That's kinda swanky, except for the new socket adoption next year.
More importantly, it does make you wonder more about the socket 754 support for future dual-core. I do think, however, that AMD would have to dumb down such a core to get two die in it and get reliable/realistic performance. Probably 32-bit dual core, A64 single core (socket754), and then obviously anything dual-channel will eventually be purely dual-core as well. I see a good reason to drop socket 754 A64 support, and roll it over to 32bit dual core. If anything of it makes sense, of course. Hey, if anything else, this gets people talking about all the confusing cores. LOL.

...Does anybody else feel like Congress simply bailed themselves out? Isn't that what they really mean by a bailout?

Re: Athlon 64 Rev F Changes

Any info about future Opterons? Are they going to use Socket M2 too? I thought AMD wanted to differentiate them from the A64/FX mainstream and that was the whole point of Socket 940 vs 754/939.

As for DDR2, I can't really see the point. It's hardly set the world on fire as it is, despite being supported on newer Intel boards. Sales have been pretty flat apparently. As well as extra expense for upgraders, the A64 design simply doesn't need it as much as the P4 does.

Re: Athlon 64 Rev F Changes

Any info about future Opterons? Are they going to use Socket M2 too? I thought AMD wanted to differentiate them from the A64/FX mainstream and that was the whole point of Socket 940 vs 754/939.

As for DDR2, I can't really see the point. It's hardly set the world on fire as it is, despite being supported on newer Intel boards. Sales have been pretty flat apparently. As well as extra expense for upgraders, the A64 design simply doesn't need it as much as the P4 does.

Yeah, AMD keeping up with Intel Jones. I think AMD will make that decision when DDR2 is more mature. Whether or not it has the staying power to support faster clocks and lower latencies being the key factor.

...Does anybody else feel like Congress simply bailed themselves out? Isn't that what they really mean by a bailout?

Re: Athlon 64 Rev F Changes

Nothing new on Opterons yet, and I honestly don't know what route they would go. On one hand I think keeping the 940-pin socket would keep their customers in that area a lot happier, on the other hand, the new technology (in the virtualization) is really need on the server/workstation so I think they might go with the new socket there too.

There tends to be criticism about articles speculating future CPUs but we really need more of them as long as they state the reasoning behind speculations.

We should remember when things change (and they do frequently) it looks like whoever was talking about future CPUs was wrong and sometimes -- they weren't -- AMD changed CPU specs just before they were scheduled to go into production.

AMD truly does not know the details of what's coming too far ahead but it's great to see articles like this.

Looks like those are Windsor specs but the interesting thing is the talk about single core Socket M2 FX (?)

Could this, and not the cache, be the difference between Orleans and Windsor?
Talk was that AMD official internal maps only specifically mentioned Windsor as dual core as far as I recall...

BTW, initial plans did have the new Socket called M2 'for sure' and it was to use DDR2 'for sure' but needless to say, AMD does not and will not comment on anything that is not officially announced.